Windows XP Service Pack 2 Build 2082

[Aloone_Jonez]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:
I have firefox. I still like IE better because of better website compatibility. Speedwise they are both fast. Don't get me wrong, I think Firefox is a nice browser, it just doesn't have all of the written for IE site compatibility.

If I want tabs in IE all I have to do is use MyIE2.

(eidt)Luna? Yuck.      

I don't get these problems because I don't use any MSIE-only sites, and if I need to I will just use MSIE. The only way MSIE beats Firefox for speed, is the time it takes to load, as MS IE is always in memory, and because of this Firefox (or any other non-MS browser) takes up more memory as it means loading another program.

I have find Firefox a lot faster than MSIE, I might notice this more than you because I have a shitty 5k connection.

For me security and features are more important than compatibility.

Normally MSIE-only sites are badly written and are thus shit.

[Zombie9920]

Security isn't much of an issue to me with IE. I have a good hardware firewall on top of a good Software firewall that blocks all popups(NPF 2004) on top of a decent software firewall(Windows firewall).

I don't stray to porn and warez sites either so that means I'm less likely to pick up the spyware + I don't go to many stes that I don't already normally visit so I'm not very likely to stray to a malicious site that tries to explot IE or infect with a JS virus.

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by Viper:
At the moment there is no way to disprove his postings. SP2 is still new and we have yet to see any new vulnerabilities. At this point and time there is no way to prove wether it is going to do any good or not. He is posting that it isn't any good with no proof to back the statement up whatsoever.

[ August 10, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]

The whole idea of sevice packs is bad.
Why is it so difficult for MS to show everything what's in it.
You get 2 choices:
*Blindly accept everything.
*Fuck off and leave your system unprotected.

[Canadian Lover]

Yes! Fuck Mozilla!
It dosn't support scrollbar CSS witch is a W3C standard!

IE has many great MS only tags hence it's the only browser that can render proper html.

[Orethrius]

Nice flamebait, think if you leave it out there long enough ya might get a couple nibbles?

[Aloone_Jonez]

quote:Originally posted by insomnia:

The whole idea of service packs is bad.

I disagree, it shows that MS is fixing their buggy OS. I would hope that SP 2 took so long to release because MS is learning form its mistakes. In the past MS has rushed the release of service packs and other software thus cutting corners and fucking it up. This could also be the reason why the release of Long Horn keeps getting delayed.


 

quote:Originally posted by insomnia:

Why is it so difficult for MS to show everything what's in it.

I take it you mean the packages and not the source code.

MS only knows.

Because Windows users are retarded and they want to ensure that SP 2 is

[Aloone_Jonez]

quote:Originally posted by Midnight Candidate/BOB:
Nice flamebait, think if you leave it out there long enough ya might get a couple nibbles?

!

Let the flambait continue

[WMD]

quote:Now if you want to talk about OS driver fuck up look no further than installing a Radeon in Linux. I have not been able to get the Radeon drivers to work in any distro so far. I'm not the only one as most people do not have much success taking thier Radeon past the generic Vesa driver in Linux.

Have you tried the generic "ati" or "radeon" drivers? (And    ATI for outsourcing their driver work.)

[bedouin]

It has been a really long time since I've encountered an Internet Explorer only site, and even then I just force Safari to identify itself as IE, which usually works fine.

In my experience the Gecko engine is even better at dealing with IE-only sites than KHTML.

Seriously though, if a company/service isn't professional enough to test their site on a variety of browsers/platforms, they don't deserve your business.  And it's really not that hard nowadays, especially since the most popular browsers are cross-platform and MacIE is dead.  

BTW: Are Konqueror and Safari pretty close when it comes to rendering, since they're both based on KHTML?

[insomnia]

quote:Originally posted by bedouin:
It has been a really long time since I've encountered an Internet Explorer only site, and even then I just force Safari to identify itself as IE, which usually works fine.

I think Viper means the truetype fonts.
You need to add them manually for legal reasons.

[Canadian Lover]

quote:
kn0wn / bob: windows 3.1 to 95 is not a decade! There HAS BEEN NO improvments if THE SAME PROBLEMS ARE present in ALL OF THEM!

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/wmx/win95demo_300.asx
If you're not closed minded, you would watch this, Solaris.

[ September 03, 2004: Message edited by: Canadian Lover ]

[blopnuts]

You might want to get a snack first...

I must say after reading all this controversy I can't help but join in.  I have used windows ever since 3x came out and replaced dos and have surfed the internet (3.11 for workgroups) on it and must say that there is a big difference.  Same goes for Linux.  Id have to say that for a personal computer for the average joe, windows is a better choice, and for the average joe ISP or network server, nix based systems are better.  Most of the people that flame either side here are missing the big picture.

Windows had siezed the opportunity long ago to dominate the market by clever use of resources (xerox) and marketing strategy toward the average person.  This is where linux has failed in the past, as you can see it is mainly used by gurus and the development of it has branched off into dozens of different distros made by individuals and companies in hopes of gearing it toward certain tasks and specific people in mind, none of which has interested joe blo.  Plus, funding for development usually relies on donations.  Linux seems to be doing significantly better in the last couple of years.

To virus and crapware writers, having two choices: write a virus that will spread to 20% of the globe, or write one that will spread to 80%, the choice is clear.  Everyone using the same system makes it easier to spread, so windows becomes a target.  Linux has had thier share of exploits and bugs which have had patches.  Writing an exploit for linux would be fundamentally easier because it is open source and the secret entrances are exposed, but again, the hunger for world domination of the virus writer would not be fulfilled, and would probably not even make the media turn its head.

I bet this is a surprise to M$ haters that the first working virus was developed and tested on unix. Here is a snippett:

On November 3, 1983, the first virus was conceived of as an experiment to be presented at a weekly seminar on computer security. The concept was first introduced in this seminar by the author, and the name 'virus' was thought of by Len Adleman. After 8 hours of expert work on a heavily loaded VAX 11/750 system running Unix, the first virus was completed and ready for demonstration. Within a week, permission was obtained to perform experiments, and 5 experiments were performed. On November 10, the virus was demonstrated to the security seminar.

Viruses dont give a crap who has what, and have even been getting into cellphones now that they are getting software with more features and becoming more like a personal computer.  Viruses will ALWAYS be around getting into whatever is new, just like biological viruses will always affect humans until we convert ourselves to metal someday, and then we will be constantly backing up our brain for fear of electronic viruses.  Its the yin for the yang, the mayo on your(at least mine) hot dog.

As for people who complain about windows being bloated and running slow on thier computer causing instability, this is true for YOUR computer.  Anyone who has used assembly and know what compiling is, knows that it takes a lot of code to do even the simplest thing like adding two numbers.  3x used to fit on 7 floppies with all the trimmings and now windows requires a whole CD while compressed.  Linux used to fit on a floppy but you wouldnt be doing much.  Doing more shit takes more code, and automating things so that you dont have to compile everything and know where every path is, the exact driver you need, recompile your kernel, ect. also takes code.  This is fine because it is geared toward people that dont know how to do any of that and never will no matter how much you try to beat linux into thier heads.  If your machine cant handle it, maybe its time to stop upgrading windows and upgrade your machine, because software utilizes the current hardware available as of its release.  
I wont say linux will never be as easy but it hasnt yet, so my grandma will not be using it.  She would also rather pay for and drive a car than use the free bus in town because there are less stops along the way.  You get what you pay for, and paying next to nothing means more work for you and less for the programmer.

Browser wars:  This crap gets annoying.  People are so bent up over mozilla, opera, firefox, and IE and which is better.  When the internet first blossomed, the two leaders, IE and Netscape tried to make thier own versions of HTML to section off the web basically, so you could make your website viewable to one or the other, or both if you had the time.  The w3 stepped in and made a standard for everyone to use and stop the fighting.  IE has gone along with this and has even added extra things like being able to color the user's scrollbars on a web page, while others seem to lack support for some of the w3 standards and a lot of javascript.  Point being the best browser for windows is the one that came with windows because it was designed to work that way, but people claim it is open to exploits and that is thier reason for switching.  News flash: Exploits are written for whatever is popular so if everyone in the world were to switch to say, opera, sploits would come out of the woodwork asap. If you like other browsers and thats what it takes to get you on the internet go ahead, there are dozens of choices out there for out fat nacho-computer-screen-staring-at asses to enjoy, and keep in mind that computers have never been used before they were invented so we have no history in some past life to tell programmers what problems are going to arise, and the more diverse plugins and programs become will lead to even more diverse problems on an individual basis AND WILL PROBABLY NOT BE FORSEEN by these code spewing humans.

the lesson learned here is:
you cant please everyone

ok im getting carpal tunnel now

[WMD]

quote:3x used to fit on 7 floppies with all the trimmings and now windows requires a whole CD while compressed.

3.0 is 7 DD floppies, and 4 HD ones (I have the HD set).  3.1 is 6 HD - with multimedia support being the only new thing.  I can see that being an extra full disk...but two?

I run 3.0 on an old 25Mhz 386 laptop.  It flies.  There should be more simplicity these days than there is, since my 386 laptop is faster than my Pentium 4 desktop.  

[ September 13, 2004: Message edited by: WMD ]

[zao]

Nice posts. Being nitpicking, I would like to argue some Brandon's points:

Originally posted by Brandon - [A+/?]:
You might want to get a snack first...

I must say after reading all this controversy I can't help but join in.  I have used windows ever since 3x came out and replaced dos and have surfed the internet (3.11 for workgroups) on it and must say that there is a big difference.  Same goes for Linux.  Id have to say that for a personal computer for the average joe, windows is a better choice, and for the average joe ISP or network server, nix based systems are better.  Most of the people that flame either side here are missing the big picture.

"Average joe" definition is relative hence the danger of generalization. The problem is the lack of education and knowledge of each system. You said Windows is better because this OS came pre-installed on many PC hence the illusion for easy install. Now that Linux distros evolved, the " Windows is a better choice" is no more a valid argument unless you are a gamer.

Windows had siezed the opportunity long ago to dominate the market by clever use of resources (xerox) and marketing strategy toward the average person.  This is where linux has failed in the past, as you can see it is mainly used by gurus and the development of it has branched off into dozens of different distros made by individuals and companies in hopes of gearing it toward certain tasks and specific people in mind, none of which has interested joe blo.  Plus, funding for development usually relies on donations.  Linux seems to be doing significantly better in the last couple of years.
 In this case, the failure paid off because individuals and companies learned from their mistakes by getting supports not only from developers, by users and community.

To virus and crapware writers, having two choices: write a virus that will spread to 20% of the globe, or write one that will spread to 80%, the choice is clear.  Everyone using the same system makes it easier to spread, so windows becomes a target.  Linux has had thier share of exploits and bugs which have had patches.  Writing an exploit for linux would be fundamentally easier because it is open source and the secret entrances are exposed, but again, the hunger for world domination of the virus writer would not be fulfilled, and would probably not even make the media turn its head.
Difference between Windows and Linux distros are the diversity i.e users can choose among Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, Mandrake, Suse or other distros.


I bet this is a surprise to M$ haters that the first working virus was developed and tested on unix. Here is a snippett:

Some Microsoft haters because you can't put all different eggs on the same basket. Now the virus you mentionned is 20 years old and you just mentionned what was done for academic demonstrations unlike the current modern virus.


Anyone who has used assembly and know what compiling is, knows that it takes a lot of code to do even the simplest thing like adding two numbers.  3x used to fit on 7 floppies with all the trimmings and now windows requires a whole CD while compressed.  Linux used to fit on a floppy but you wouldnt be doing much.  Doing more shit takes more code, and automating things so that you dont have to compile everything and know where every path is, the exact driver you need, recompile your kernel, ect. also takes code.  This is fine because it is geared toward people that dont know how to do any of that and never will no matter how much you try to beat linux into thier heads.  If your machine cant handle it, maybe its time to stop upgrading windows and upgrade your machine, because software utilizes the current hardware available as of its release.
I have to argue on this one. First error is to assume all Linux distros are the same. Sure they are based on the same kernel, but the whole packages are different. The reasons why current Linux distros come with CD are from the extra packages in addition to the kernel. You can still install a Linux kernel (2.4) from floppy drive but that decision belong to the individual. Second, no one has seen the source code of Windows without NDA agreement. Because of this, no one can check the Windows problem which is why Microsoft are so slow for fixing their products.

I wont say linux will never be as easy but it hasnt yet, so my grandma will not be using it.  She would also rather pay for and drive a car than use the free bus in town because there are less stops along the way.  You get what you pay for, and paying next to nothing means more work for you and less for the programmer.
I guess you haven't try Linux distros such as Xandros or Linspire. What is your grandma's need?  This argument is now obsolete.

Browser wars:  This crap gets annoying.  People are so bent up over mozilla, opera, firefox, and IE and which is better.  When the internet first blossomed, the two leaders, IE and Netscape tried to make thier own versions of HTML to section off the web basically, so you could make your website viewable to one or the other, or both if you had the time.  The w3 stepped in and made a standard for everyone to use and stop the fighting.  IE has gone along with this and has even added extra things like being able to color the user's scrollbars on a web page, while others seem to lack support for some of the w3 standards and a lot of javascript.  Point being the best browser for windows is the one that came with windows because it was designed to work that way, but people claim it is open to exploits and that is thier reason for switching.  News flash: Exploits are written for whatever is popular so if everyone in the world were to switch to say, opera, sploits would come out of the woodwork asap. If you like other browsers and thats what it takes to get you on the internet go ahead, there are dozens of choices out there for out fat nacho-computer-screen-staring-at asses to enjoy, and keep in mind that computers have never been used before they were invented so we have no history in some past life to tell programmers what problems are going to arise, and the more diverse plugins and programs become will lead to even more diverse problems on an individual basis AND WILL PROBABLY NOT BE FORSEEN by these code spewing humans.
Another point you didn't mentionned is Internet Explorer come included on Windows package which was not the case with Netscape. By including Internet Explorer as part of Windows, Microsoft sustemically destroyed that browser competition. When there is no competition, company have a tendance to stagnate their products while other innovated.

[ September 14, 2004: Message edited by: zao ]